AALIA NEELUM, J.---Muhammad Akhter son of Muhammad Nazir , Caste Arian, resident of Mohalla Chah Chorianwala Dullay , Gujranwala, the appellant was involved in case FIR No.384-2 015, dated 09.07.2015, offence under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station, Dullay , Gujranwala and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court (CNS), Gujranwala. The learned trial court seized with the matter in terms of judgment dated 31.08.2016 convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenc ed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with the direction to pay Rs.30000/- as fine and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant would further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C was also extended in favour of the appellant. The appellant has assailed his conviction through filing instant criminal appeal.
2. The prosecution story as alleged in the FIR (Ex.P A) lodged on the written complaint (Ex,PC/1) of Muhammad Naeem, SI (PW-6)-the complainant is that on 09.07.2015, the complainant. (PW-6) along with police party was present at Jinnah Road near Sharifpura chowk and in the meanwhile, the complainant received a secret information that the accused-Muhammad Akhter while carrying three sacks of Bhukki was standing at Ganda Nala pulli and if a raid was conducted, he could be apprehended whereupon police party reached the spot and overpowered the accused-Muhammad Akhter . During search, three sacks of bhukki were recovered from his possession, which were taken into possession by the complainant (PW-6) and out of the recovered substance, a sample of 500 grams bhukki from each sack was separated by the complainant after embossing a seal of M.N.
Thereafter , the complainant (PW-6) drafted a complaint (Ex.PC/1) and sent the same to the police station for registration of formal FIR (Ex.P A).
3. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the learned trial court, while evaluating the evidence available on record, found the version of the prosecution as correct beyond any shadow of doubt, which resulted into conviction of the appellant in the above stated terms.
4. After arguing the appeal at length, learned counsel for the appellant contends that he would not press this appeal in case this Court while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, reduces the sentence.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has not opposed the contention raised on behalf of the appellant.
6. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellan t as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have minutely perused the record available on the file.
7. As the learned counsel for the appella nt has not opted to assail conviction recorded by the learned trial court against the appellant, therefore, we do not feel it necessary to discuss in detail the prosecution evidence on the record. However , we find that in view of recovery of narcotic substance Bhukki (P-1/1-3) fully substantiated by Muhammad Anwar 1922/Constable (PW-2)-recovery witness, Muhammad Naeem, S.I. (PW-6)-the complainant and Muhammad Yousaf S.I. (PW-7)- investigating officer and the Positive report of narcotics analysis (Exh.PD) with regard to parcels of samples sent for chemical analysis, particularly the fact that the complainant and other officials had no previous ill will to falsely involve the appellant in the instant case, we have been persuaded to hold that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant admitted presence of the appellate at the place of accurrence. We, thus, see no infirmity in the impugned judgment to the extent of conviction of the appellant, as awarded by the learned trial court and as such we find no ground or justification to warrant interference in the same. Consequently , we are inclined to maintain the conviction as B recorded by the learned trial court.
8. Now the question arises whether the sentence of life imprisonment as inflicted by the learned trial court is on exact proportionate to the act done by the appellant or the appellant is entitled to reduction of his sentence in view of Ghulam Murtaza's case (PLD 2009 Lahore 362). We have carefully gone through the available record, it is worth mentioning that three bags of Bhukki (P-1/1-3) weighing total 30 kilogr ams were recovered from the possession of the appellant. Then Muham mad Naeem S.I. (PW-6)-the complainant took 500/500 grams of the each bag of suspected substances as sample and prepared three parcels of samples and one consolidated parcel of remaining contraband substance. Muhammad Naeem S.I. (PW-6)-the complainant deposed during examination-in- chief that "---I prepared four sealed parcels of recovered Bhukki and took into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.P-C. I handed over the four sealed parcels of recovered Bhukki and accused to the I. O".
Admittedly , the complainant took 500/500 grams of Bhukki from each bag and thereafter prepared one consolidated parcel of remaining contraband substance. Thus, the appellant could not be sentenced for life imprisonment in view of Ameer Zeb's case (PLD 2012 SC 380) as prosecution destroyed the evidence by consolidating three bags of recovered contraband. It is indeed quite true which cannot be overlooked at the fact that Muhammad Naeem S.I. (PW-6)-the complainant prepared three samples of parcel weighing 500/500 grams from recovered substance. From the testimony of Muhammad Naeem S.I. (PW-6)-the complainant, it is axiomatic that only three parcels of sample and one parcel of remaining case property were prepared and same were handed over to the moharrar for depositing in the mallkhana and three parcels of sample were dispatched through Muhammad Aslam 1635/C (PW-3) for onward transmission to the office of forensic science agency , Punjab, Lahore. At the most, the quantity which could be considered at this stage is only to the extent of samples drawn from consolidated bags of Bhukki. As per the Narcotic Analysis report (Exh.PD) regarding Bhukki three samples of Bhukki had been tested. Thus the appellant is liable only for weight of samples of Bhukki. When such is the case, only weighing 1500 grams Bhukki could be considered against the appellant. The schedule provided in Ghulam Murtaza's , case (PLD 2009 Lahore 362) reflects that imprisonment of three (3) years, upon recovery of Bhukki exceeding 1 kilogram and up to 2 kilogra ms along with fine of Rs.7,500/- and in default simple imprisonment for four (4) months has been provided. The above said sentencing policy formulated by this court in Ghulam Murtaza's case (PLD 2009 Lahore 362) was also subsequently approved by the august Supreme Court in the case of "Amir Zaib v . The State" (PLD 2012 SC 380 ) and in case of " Fareed Ullah v . State" (2013 SCMR 302 ).
From the report requisitioned from the Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore, it reveals that the appellant has served out five years six months and five days sentence of imprisonment till 03-10-2019.
9. In these circumstances, we have arrived at the conclusion that in view of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the interest of justice and for the safe administration of justice, the sentence already undergone by the appellant, would be adequate.
10. Consequently , instant Criminal Appeal bearing No.1660 of 2016, filed by Muhammad Akhter , the appellant is dismissed with the modification, that sentence of life imprisonment along with fine is reduced to that already undergone by the appellant.